Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Stephen Strasburg GA review -- pending

Hey, folks. Strasburg's good article review is up and I could use some help fixing what's left. Thanks! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I was about to fail this. I will give the project a few days to step forward. You have at least three days before I will fail it now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WS champion in infobox

Editors have been adding/removing 2010 WS champion from Barry Zito's infobox. No discussion or edit summary reasons, so I can only assume its because he was left off the postseason roster that year, but he was still under contract and even got a ring. Same seems to be happening to Melky Cabrera for 2012 (except I wonder if he will be given a ring). For the infobox, I assume it's easier to go back in time and find out who was on past WS roster than to figure out who got a ring. Otherwise, I have no preference whether it is listed. If an MVP-type player is ever injured and not on WS roster but his team wins, would we apply the same rule?—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If he wasnt on the World Series roster, he shouldn't be listed.. Same for Brian Wilson and various other Giants that people keep adding world series champion links to.Spanneraol (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting a ring is not the same thing as being a World Series champion. Rings are commonly given out as honors to anyone the team deems deserving. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that baseball doesn't have an actual rule for this like the NHL does. A player has to play a specific percentage of games in the regular season or appear in the final series in a single game to get their name engraved on the Stanley Cup which is effectively stating they were a champion. -DJSasso (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• There are exceptions: Marc Savard of the Bruins, for example, only played 25 regular season games in the 2010-11 season because of concussion symptoms, yet the organization successfully petitioned for his name to be included. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that your normal roster is generally different from your postseason roster (especially when you don't need as many starters). Ergo, someone could pitch a full season and be left off the postseason roster because he was the 5th starter (and couldn't do long relief, for example). Like I said above, Stephen Strasberg would have had the same problem had the Nationals won it all. Is it really fair? Can we re-gather consensus? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Do you have a proposal for objectively determining who to include and who not to?—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    • I think there are several possibilities. I.e., Anyone on the team the entire regular season; anyone on the team as of the last day of eligibility for the post-season roster; most importantly, anyone missing the post-season roster due to injury (which may not be confirmable via the IR list at that point but generally would be supportable via reliable sources). Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep going by the easiest line to check... did they play in the postseason. Particularly the IR thing is problematic as Freddy Sanchez spent the entire season on the DL and Brian Wilson most of it.. they did not contribute at all to the championship and should not be listed. Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the quantifier would be similar to how Stanley Cup engravings are: (a) you are under the team's control as of last game of the WS (Obvious you need to be with the team when it's won) AND (b) Having played at least 1 game in the postseason (as it's possible to not be played even on the roster/left off WS roster because injury during postseason) or having enough Plate Appearances/Innings Pitched/Games Played with the team during the regular season. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: having enough Plate Appearances/Innings Pitched/Games Played with the team during the regular season: I'm assuming the NHL has strict criteria defined by the league. For baseball, however, this seems to be arbitrary criteria that we as editors would be inventing.—Bagumba (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah the NHL is 41 regular season games (half season) or 1 game in the Finals. For baseball it would be us inventing it.... -DJSasso (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

There's gotta be a standard that we can set, since it's not like an engraving where the list (of engraved players) is set in stone anyway. We could always take the qualifying PA/IP for Triple Crown leaderboards, for example. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That would make Melky Cabrera-haters happy :-)—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal, then: A player can be annotated the World Series Champion with their respective team if:

1. He has at least 3.1 Plate Appearances for each game his team played (for non-player) or 1 Inning Pitched per game his team played (for pitchers - may need to adjust for relievers), or
2. He has played in at least 1 game of his team's playoff run (to compensate for teams changing rosters more commonly in MLB compared to NHL). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 06:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A reserve/relief pitcher who played most of the season, but say had a season ending injury in September, would be overlooked. Also, I can imagine some players on a post-season roster could conceivably never play in a game. Note also that Melky will receive a full playoff share. Not sure how accessible info on playoff shares is, but it would seem slightly strange that 2012 WS is not listed on his infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Game Played should be taken into account, but what gives? It's for us to properly identify. We could obviously arbitrarily give it to players on 25-man roster + DL, but this would not have solved the Strasberg issue (as I don't believe he was DL'd towards the end). And that doesn't solve the Giants closer issue, either. We can annotate but that might be the best we can do...? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 22:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: "but what gives": While its an editorial decision on whether to have WS in the infobox, I think it should be based off of a single simple real-life fact like being on WS roster, receiving a WS ring, receiving full playoff share, etc. instead of some complex WP-created criteria. Or maybe we should just remove it altogether?—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally this is one of the many reasons why we should leave all awards other than the HoF out of the infobox. But, I won't get into that debate again after the lengthy one that was had in the summer. -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unlike WS, the other awards are not subjective whether they were achieved. Agreed, let's not reopen the rest.—Bagumba (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Statistical awards are, unless the data differs, set in stone and can be tracked. Award voting (MVP, CY, GS, GG, RoY) also have press statements associated with them and can be tracked definitely, instead of having to use a judgment call... - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 10:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Being on a world series roster is a lot easier to verify than who got a full playoff share or received a ring, especially for players from long ago.Spanneraol (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The simplest approach is to maintain consistency with reliable sources: if there are reliable, notable, independent sources that refer to a player as a member of a World Series champion team, then the corresponding Wikipedia article should be free to do so as well. Although this may lead to a player who was momentarily on the disabled list for the MLB team and never on the 25-man roster to be designated as part of a World Series championship team, leaving this information out, in contradiction of reliable sources, is a "we don't like it" argument. isaacl (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that Barry Zito is still changing, I tried a compromise of leaving it in the infobox but adding a footnote that he was not on the postseason roster.—Bagumba (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

20 days have passed since I nominated the List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game for FLC. So far, there hasn't been a single support or oppose vote and feedback is currently at a standstill. I think getting our baseball community here involved in the process would be a great way to get the discussion going again. Who'd like to help? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I would if it were a topic other than baseball because I don't get into discussions on FA/FLs that involve topics in subjects I edit so that the pages get the true external non-biased look at that they need from non-baseball editors. I will however look at the page itself and make any fixes I might see. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

To each their own. But in this recently promoted FLC, the nominator was explicitly told by an admin to garner support votes from the WikiProject community affiliated with the list. So for everyone involved in WP Baseball, I honestly don't see any problem or conflicts of interest with editing baseball-related pages and supporting/opposing/commenting on baseball FLs. In fact, the added baseball knowledge of our community can help tremendously with critically evaluating these FACs/FLCs. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh its not that its a COI or anything. I just think its usually a better idea not to comment on articles you have edited because of rose coloured glasses and the like. If no one else comments any time soon I will drop by and try and help get it going. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks DJ! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Be careful about using "GS" as an abbreviation, because that's usually a pitching stat called "Games Started". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ryu Hyun-jin

I don't know that much about Korean names... but mlb.com is listing him as Hyun-Jin Ryu and various news articles list him both ways and Baseball Reference lists him as Hyeon-jin Ryu [1].. so not sure what his article should be named. The article is also fairly unsourced and i haven't been able to find any english language sources to verify much of the info. Any ideas? Spanneraol (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the answer(s) is/are here, but shouldn't the stats table be removed? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the order of the names, see Korean names. As for the spelling, the transliteration used on his team's website is probably a reasonable choice for the one we should use. All transliteration schemes from languages such as Korean to English are arbitrary, so there is no "right answer" to the question which one we should use. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the Indians (or soon-to-be Reds) outfielder had his page moved to Choo Shin-Soo. I don't know when that happened, didn't have it on my watchlist until now. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? I've never heard him called that. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, regardless of what his name is, some help on his page might be nice regarding the addition of what appears to be unsourced speculation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Resolved. Now what about the name? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that objects to the move could either 1) move it back and inform the editor to start a WP:RM if they object or 2) just start a RM.—Bagumba (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking option one. Thanks for your usual helpfulness, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

New AFD

I have bundle nominated all the opening day starting lineup list articles for deletion. You can find the AfD here. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 21:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

James Loney

I need assistance from an administrator working with the project (any admin will do really). Currently, the page James Loney is a disambiguation page for the baseball player, and an activist of the same name. Based on Google searches, the baseball Loney is clearly more notable than the activist Loney, and I moved the page accordingly (WP:TWODABS). However, I cannot move the page history to the main page. If an administrator could assist the move that would be great. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it isn't that cut and dry. The activist was pretty major news for quite awhile. I would open up a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion on the disambiguation page. -DJSasso (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A move has been requested on the talk page. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Choo Shin-Soo

Since the article has been moved back again, I have opened up a request that the page be moved pack to Shin-Soo Choo. Regardless of your opinion, please weigh in. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(moved) It's definitely "Shin-Soo Choo". User who moved it claims that "he was born in Korea, raised in Korea, and spent most of his life in Korea" and therefore his surname should go first. This is false. WP should be following the common name of a player, which means the one he is commonly referred to in English. MLB.com refers to Choo with his surname last, just like it does with Chan Ho Park and Byung-Hyun Kim. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, please feel welcome to state your opinion at the requested move. I don't think comments here will be evaluated in determining consensus. v/r AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Didn't notice the link at the top the first time round. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim

We need to delete the fan cruft from that page. I just got taken to DRN by an IP. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thats another team page with way too much year by year stuff... really need to get that out of there. Spanneraol (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've pared down the 2000 through present seasons. The only items that really need to stay are playoff details, GM and ownership changes, and major player changes (Adenhart's death and the big signings of Pujols and Wilson seem to meet the threshold IMHO). – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Jack Chesbro

We're having some discussion at Talk:Jack Chesbro about the HoFer's original last name: was it "Cheesbro" or "Chesebrough"? As this article is listed as a GA, we should try to get it right. If anyone knows anything definitive on this, it would be helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

According to familysearch.org, the family name is spelled "Chesbro" on the 1880 US census register where Jack first appears. It is "Chesebro" in 1870, before he was born. However, his grandfather's family appears again as "Chesbro" in an 1855 Massachusetts state census. 19th century spelling is all over the place like that. I'd suggest that, if you want an "official" spelling, you'll need to find his father's autograph. Rklear (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Spelling was not necessarily standardized, and some of my own relatives have significantly different spellings from one census to another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Lou Gehrig: Pride of the Yankees

Why doesn't this novel have an article. The movie came from this novel.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I can look into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

You are probably just the man for the job.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked this subject up and not found anything, or not gotten to it yet?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

He said he could, he didn't say he would. :) I googled it and there are plenty of references to the book - which, by the way, is a biography, not a "novel".[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm less experienced at writing articles on books than on people, but I think I'll start this one this week. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

When you start it, please include {{Paul Gallico}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's enough for it to receive its own article independent of the movie's article. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Really?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess that a biography is much less likely to warrant its own article and the meagre coverage in author biography Paul Gallico may be all that is warranted there.

On the other hand, neither the book nor Gallico is mentioned in the biography Lou Gehrig and they are mis-covered in the film article Pride of the Yankees which says only {infobox film} story by Paul Gallico and "The film was adapted by Herman J. Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling, and an uncredited Casey Robinson from a story by Paul Gallico."

How many Gehrig biographies are there? Perhaps his biography should have a section on that.

Certainly it's appropriate to begin coverage of the book with a section of the film article. Offhand I doubt the book warrants {{infobox book}}. Even if it does, a single article may be appropriate. (For example see The Snowman.)

WP:FILM may have useful advice, manual of style, or tradition. --P64 (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not experienced at writing articles on books (the only one I have to my credit is The Bronx Zoo (book)), but most of what I found on this book was really relating to the movie, since the movie was being produced basically as the book was being written. P64 has some good advice there on how to handle this, since the movie page doesn't even mention the book. I can look further into how to handle that. Maybe a section on the movie page can blossom into it's own article. I'm not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it safe to call Matt Bush a former player yet?

Matt Bush just pleaded no contest to DUI and was sentenced to three years in prison. He won't be released until 2016, when he'll be 29 years old--awfully old for a major league prospect. Given that, and his own statements that Tampa Bay was his last chance, can it be said that he's third number-one pick to have never played in the majors? I'm inclined to think so, but I'm hoping to get consensus here. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 23:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure there is much precedent for this situation. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bush is a former professional baseball player at this point in time. IMHO....William 00:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No way. He's still young enough to make a comeback. Crazier things have happened before. Look at Maurice Clarett. Also baseball is a sport where guys could play till their mid-40s. It would be unfair to write off Bush's chances. When he gets released, it is also likely he could at least play in the minors or independent ball.--YOLO Swag (talk) 00:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with YOLO. He forgot to mention Plaxico Burress and Jamal Lewis. I'm not sure if there's a baseball equivalent, but it's WP:CRYSTAL to say he won't try to play again. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right, but it is worth noting that Lewis's jail term did not cause him to miss many games and both Lewis and Burress had played in the NFL before their legal trouble. Bush, on the other hand, has never made it to the bigs. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

True regarding Lewis. I thought he had missed a season, though I recalled incorrectly. Bush not reaching MLB doesn't have anything to do with his status as an "active" or "inactive" or "former" player, as I'm sure he could sign on with an independent team after his release. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

True, my point is simply that Lewis and Burress were more established than Bush and therefore more likely to get a second chance. Still, I think you are right about WP:CRYSTAL. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bush could easily get signed by someone like the York Revolution upon his release. If he pitches well there, he could get back to affiliated baseball with a minor league contract. Even if he was only playing independent ball upon his release, it would be way too premature to call a 29 year old with a blazing fastball a "former" player.--YOLO Swag (talk) 00:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Former" is fine if he explicitly says he quit or retired. Othwerwise, prison sentence aside, how long do editors usually wait before we designate a player that hasnt played in a while is a "former player"?—Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to wait until two full seasons have passed without the player making an appearance in a professional league, barring extenuating circumstances. In Bush's case, I'd say if he isn't signed in either the year he's released or the following year, then I'd feel comfortable calling him "former". -Dewelar (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a Hank Aaron baseball card in which the text mentioned that he was the brother of "former" major leaguer Tommie Aaron. That was funny, as Tommie made a comeback. However, in this case, the guy is not a current major leaguer, so you can't describe him that way. Maybe you could straddle the fence and say he has been a player and is currently in prison, and leave out the "current" or "past" adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:Recentism, editors should write with a long-term, historical view.Orsoni (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I forget if baseball players do it. But in hockey they file official papers declaring themselves retired. That is when we make the change on hockey articles. Although Bush hasn't gone to the bigs...so I guess that isn't as relevant here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I vaguely recall last time I looked into it that if you draw upon your MLB pension before a certain threshold age, you have to file a request. Below that age I don't believe there is an official declaration of retirement. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

"Baseball" (as we say in USA) has had some version of formal voluntary retirement for a long time, long before any pension arranngements. Somewhere we should cover that status historically, among others such as the disabled list.

There was some formal announcement by HOFer Earle Combs and the Commissioner in 1934, which we don't mention in the player biography. Earle Combs#Major league years. I don't recall reading whether he/they put him on an extant list. Retrosheet (see foot of page) does not report any Transaction such as "voluntarily retired" but I think that may have been reported in 1934. --P64 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that at this point we could probably call him a former player; he's not currently under contract on any team, he hasn't played in oneseveral seasons, and he's not going to be playing in the near future. Sure, he could play in the future, but literally, at that point, all we'd have to do is remove "former" and add the team. And YOLO, let's hope it's the Revolution and not the Lancaster Barnstormers. Go Phightins! 02:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. He played the full season in the Rays system in 2011, and was on the restricted list for all of 2012, so the last time he was eligible to play, he did. -Dewelar (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Striking and modifying part of my comment. Still, he currently has no ties with any organization and is in jail...sure it could happen, but as of right now he's not currently a baseball player, he's an inmate, therefore, I think he's a "former baseball player". Go Phightins! 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, he could always play in the California Penal league *grin* . -Dewelar (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

That worked out as a springboard for Ricky Vaughn. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! -Dewelar (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me you label him "former". Seems like it's more crystal ball-ish to assume he'll come back. The "former" can always be removed obviously at that point. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see it as crystal ball-ish to assume he won't come back. "Former" implies some finality. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not call him an "inactive" baseball player? That seems to cover all bases. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Goose Kallunki

Rescued this from a BLP PROD; no idea as to notability. Someone might want to take a look at it. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

He has significant coverage in the Deseret News, a mention or two in the Salt Lake Tribune, but I'm not seeing much from other publications. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've redirected him to the Padres minor league players page, which seems more appropriate. Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

YahwehSaves

YahwehSaves is going around changing the number of All-Star selections players were selected to. Can somebody please help with this, i'd rather not get blocked for violationg WP:3RR.--Yankees10 20:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like he's gotten worse in the past 24 hours. Time for a block? Wizardman 00:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a note to all of the discussion threads should be added pointing to this one, and we can reach/reaffirm a consensus on the infobox wording for All-Star selections? isaacl (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice should be updated at some point to document standard syntax.—Bagumba (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the last related discussion on this was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_30#Use_of_.22winner.22_and_.22award.22_in_infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one that should be reproved ... the number of times a player was an All-Star means number of times chosen for the AL or NL All-Star team (or squad) according to Hall of Fame, and other legitimate baseball sources that quote the times a player was an All-Star. Mickey Mantle for one was a 16-time (20 games) All-Star not 20 time All-Star. Double All-Star games had separate lineups (like double headers).— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs) 23:43, 17 December 2012‎ (UTC)

Would a wording such as "was selected as an All-Star in 16 seasons" solve this issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Too long for the infobox. Note that his HOF plaque lists "20 A.L. ALL-STAR TEAMS". YahwehSaves: Can you provide the sources you are referring to?—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That may not be Mantle's original plaque. It looks like maybe plaques or some plaques were replaced with newer ones and have errors and could be why you are confused too. Look at this > Nelson (Nellie) Fox's Hall of Fame biography/plaque that I referred to but the editors against me intentionally ignore [3], "12-time All-Star" (15 games). So, Fox was chosen to the AL All-Star team 12 times for 12 teams and 12 seasons (15 games) not 15-times (and 15 teams)(Yankees 10). Same thing for Mantle, Maris, Clemente. The Aparicio HOF bio I referred to > "named to All-Star squad 10 times" [4] not 13 times and 13 teams. Yankees 10 insists 13x All-Star. The Aparicio HOF bio means to me that Aparicio was on AL All-Star team 10 times/10 seasons (played 13/14 games) not 13 times and 13 teams which seems kinda ridiculous since he was originally chosen once each season to be on the All-Star team. Other distortions are placing the All-Star on top in the Box for Career Highlights and awards instead of MVP.... I think I know how to solve it but right now trying to clear myself since I'm being forced too. See Roger Maris Talk, 4-time All Star, comments. Does all this help? The HOF site biographies are accurate (Fox 1997 HOF, "12-time All-Star").— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

• MOS:INFOBOX says to present infomation in short form. The prose can provide specific details on years and appearances to account for the period when there was 2 ASG/yr, but the infobox should just choose one format or the other (e.g. game selections or years). Currently, the choice is to list all the games, and the convention is clear when the same year is listed twice as in Mickey Mantle e.g. 20× All-Star (1952, 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1959², 1960, 1960², 1961, 1961², 1962, 1962², 1963, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1968). I dont see a strong reason to change the infobox convention, either way needs to be explained in more detail in the prose anyways. If it was already listing only years, I would be arguing to just leave that also. It doesnt seem like a big deal either way.—Bagumba (talk)

The problem is that Yahweh is insisting on a particular definition of what "x-time all-star" supposedly means, without providing definitive proof. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia counts each game as a selection. Bottom line is we will find sources that count years as well as games. IMO, it's not really worth cluttering up the infobox with more words, so pick one (easiest to stick with the current format) and just details it in prose. I suppose a footnote can be added to the infobox if there is consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As noted before, as an example, Aparicio was selected for one all-star squad in 1961 while Maris was selected for both. There were 2 separate games, and 2 separate selections. That detail seems to have eluded Mr. Saves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mantle didn't play 1962 game 2 [5]. Far as eluding, for some reason All-Star "team" has been avoided. Aparicio was definitely on the 1961 AL All-Star team. His HOF bio says he was named to the All-Star squad "10 times"; you're implying he was on the All-Star squad 13 times instead of 14 and Aparicio wasn't chosen to be a 1961 All-Star until game 2. How would you know when he was chosen and became a 1961 All-Star? Seems to me they were all chosen at the same time to be members of the 1961 All-Star "team", and just because Aparicio wasn't present at 1961 Game 1 does not conclude he wasn't an "All-Star" then. -YS — Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

There is no convention—either in Wikipedia or outside of it—that "All-Star" implies "All-Star" for a season and not a game. I don't see adding "team" as being any clearer; I still believe having details in the body is sufficient, while leaving the infobox in short form, as by general navbox convention.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I quote from the 1962 Sporting News Official Baseball Guide, p.127. Make of it what you will: "Continuing a practice begun in 1958, the managers, coaches and players of the two leagues again selected their circuit's starting lineup, exclusive of the pitcher. The only restriction was that no player could vote for a member of his own club. The managers of the two teams picked the remaining players. Each was limited to a 25-man squad for the first game. For the second, both were permitted to add three additional performers and also make any desired changes in their pitching staffs." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC),br>

"All-Star" does apply for the year, go to Baseball-Reference. com[6], Mantle for example simply says Awards - "AS", for 16 years (16 time All-Star).— Preceding unsigned comment added by YahwehSaves (talk • contribs)

That's original synthesis on Yahweh's part. Nowhere does it say "16 time all-star". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The section on the b-r.com page under "Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors" enumerates each game. There is no "standard" way on this source either.—Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hall of Fame plaques vary in their wording, but I call your attention to Brooksie:[7] ... "Named to 18 consecutive All-Star teams." In fact, he played 18 consecutive All-Star Games. Note that that covers 15 years,[8] 1960 through 1974, with 2 games each in 1960-61-62. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

1958: 25th All-Star Game: 25th playing of the "Midsummer Classic", 1-1958 MLB AS (AL) Roster, 1-1958 MLB AS (NL) Roster.
1959-62: All players who were named to the AL or NL roster were credited with one All-Star appearance per season. [9]
1959-62: "All-Star Game" was presented as a "doubleheader": 26th, 27th [10], 28th, 29th All Star Game (26th, 27th, 28th, 29th playing of the Midsummer Classic),
4 1959-62 MLB AS (AL) Rosters, 4 1959-62 MLB AS (NL) Rosters (not 8 1959-62 MLB AS (AL) Rosters, 8 1959-62 MLB AS (NL) Rosters) [11].
1963: 34th All-Star Game.
Mickey Mantle, Baseball-Reference "Standard Batting|More Stats" - "Awards", "AS", "Year", "1952-65, 1967-68" (16 years). [12]
Mickey Mantle/Whitey Ford HOF Induction Ceremony 1974: Mantle, "16-time All-Star"/ Ford, "made eight All-Stars" [13].
Aparicio HOF Induction Ceremony 1984, "10 All-Star selections" (not 13 All-Star selections) [14].
Brooks Robinson HOF Induction Ceremony 1983, "15-time All-Star" [15].YahwehSaves (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 23:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

You have yet to provide any kind of official source that officially defines what the term "x-time all-star" actually means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

First round draft picks lists need help

I was looking through a couple of my FLs, and noticed that only a handful of the first-round draft pick lists have been updated for 2012. Anyone willing to help me out and tackle some of these? A few are easy enough, those with a slew of supplemental picks will take a while. Wizardman 16:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in lists, but I can take a look. Go Phightins! 17:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In the event a team had multiple compensatory or supplemental picks, do we list them all? Go Phightins! 19:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We do, so it's possible a team can have 4 or 5 for one year (hence why this probably wasn't done, it's a pain for some teams). Wizardman 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I see. I added both of the Phillies'...I saw last year the Rays had like eight, so I wanted to double-check. Anyway, I can probably do a few more teams. Go Phightins! 02:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Mike Capel

Mike Capel is a featured article candidate. Comments are welcomed. Albacore (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

News regarding the umpires task force

It is my pleasure to report that the umpires task force has succeeded in seeing its first article promoted to GA status: Joe West (umpire)! (It is only the second article in the task force's scope that is a GA, the other one, Bob Ferguson (infielder), was promoted in 2008 and its subject is not primarily known for being an umpire.) I would particularly like to thank Eric Enfermero and Go Phightins! for their help in this accomplishment.

On another note, there is a discussion going on here at the task force talk page regarding the idea of a group effort to get Hank O'Day promoted to FA status in time for O'Day's HOF induction this upcoming summer. If you are interested, please feel free to participate. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Roberto Clemente

OK, there seems to be an edit skirmish brewing. Should Roberto's full name be rendered as Roberto Clemente Walker, as his Hall of Fame plaque was corrected to, or should it be Roberto Walker Clemente, as it was typically listed during his career? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be based on a consensus of sources, rather than relying on just the HoF or just the Pirates (who also called him "Bob" for a major part of his career)? For what it's worth, "Roberto Clemente Walker" generates about 170 times as many Google hits as "Roberto Walker Clemente", not that that's definitive, either. Rklear (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's more a question of whether we use the Hispanic or American usage when stating their full names within the article. I note that Orlando Cepeda (the name he was known by in the US) has his proper Spanish name along with a link to the way Spanish names are rendered. So maybe it's mostly a question of consistency, of having one standard, especially with all the Latin American players nowadays. The title is properly Roberto Clemente, because that's the common name in English. But his birth name is properly Roberto Clemente Walker. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Major League Baseball single-game records

I added this to the Special Projects page and this got me wondering – should this topic include only the lists of MLB players who have accomplished the feats, or should it also include the overview pages? I'm currently undecided on what to do because although the overview pages give an in-depth summary of what the accomplishment entails, it also includes info about the NPB feat (which isn't in adherence to the topic's scope of MLB single-game records only). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox in American League article

I have started a discussion on the talk page for the American League article regarding its infobox and if the "number of teams" field should break down the number of teams by country. Any input is welcome. isaacl (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Since all but 1 is in the USA, I don't see the value in it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Status of Portal:Baseball/Anniversaries

This appears to be a project started back in February 2009 but it never got any traction and is far from completed (perhaps completed is not the right word as nothing is ever completed, but this never really got started). At best it appears to be a walled garden. Is there any plan to continue it or has it been abandoned? Does it have any value? -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

At the current state of it, there is 94 out of 366 started. They bring some value to the Portal via Portal:Baseball/Categories and Main topics. But would completing the rest justify the current 151 views in the last 30 days? --J36miles (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be quite an undertaking to complete and maintain them. Without project-wide support, it seems unlikely to happen. It seems like it never really had much support and at this point it should be abandoned/deleted. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought to MfD here. I feel ambivalent but without real attachment since this was before my time here. If we want to save it, we need to save it. Otherwise, it's likely to be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Baseball Hall of Fame balloting dab page

Hi all. I just created Baseball Hall of Fame balloting as a dab page, and I admit it's a bit clumsy. But it didn't seem right to me to see all the members of Category:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting without Baseball Hall of Fame balloting actually going anywhere. In the future, it might make sense to split National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum#Selection process off into its own article at that name, but for the time being, I figured something was better than nothing. I probably wouldn't object to having it turned into a redirect though. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I expanded the category, and instead enumerated all the indiv balloting articles.—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm. I thought about doing that, but it doesn't look half as bad as I feared. I just tweaked the list to display in columns. Good edits. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks even better with the columns. I figured why force readers to click on yet another page to finally get what they want.—Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would split that section off and make it a separate article. That being said I am actually surprised all those individual articles exist and am not entirely convinced they should.-DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If the new article is created, it should be the link used the title of the {{Baseball Hall of Fame}} navbox instead of the existing "Balloting in the National Baseball Hall of Fame".—Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Milton Bradley

Need some input here. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 15:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Uniforms at first All-Star game

I have started a discussion on the Major League Baseball page regarding the uniforms worn at the first All-Star game. If anyone can confirm the statements made in the article regarding the lettering on the jerseys, please add to the discussion. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, the National League clubs had special shirts saying "National League", while the American League wore their individual team shirts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

2013 WBC

Rosters for the 2013 WBC have been released. I could use help adding them at 2013 World Baseball Classic rosters. I did Team USA earlier today but I'm too busy now to do another.[16] – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Does the flagicon by the player's team represent the location of the professional team he normally plays for? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The clubnat= parameter can be added to differentiate it for, say, MLB players representing their home countries. Take a look at 2009 World Baseball Classic rosters to see how we did it four years ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, you already got it and fixed my mistakes with Toronto I see. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I might take a crack at some of them... why are we using that goofy format instead of our normal roster format? Lot of extra stuff to type in. Spanneraol (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing. I just started it based off of the 2009 page, which uses them. Maybe we should change the format? I will probably be able to help add more later tonight if it's not yet finished. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Tracking down the teams for the Chinese and Cuban players might be difficult. I did Canada and will get to some more of them later. Spanneraol (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Tracking them down"? They're up there.[17][18] – Muboshgu (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he means the teams they play for professionally. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, thats what i meant. Spanneraol (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

BTW, guys, the use of flag icons to represent the geographic location of professional teams is deprecated. Flags should be used only for the nation that a given player represents in international competition -- not residence, not birthplace, not prior teams, not dual citizenship, etc. Most of the flag use here is overkill. Please remove the inappropriate flag icons before you bring the anti-flaggers down on us. There is a determined group of editors who want to ban all flag icons in virtually all circumstances, and overuse helps make their case. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think in this case the flags are being used to show what country the various teams are from and are not related to the players at all. Spanneraol (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanner, please accept my apologies if was not clear in making my point: flag icons for the national teams participating in the WBC are fine, provided, of course, that the flags are not otherwise overused. However, the use of U.S. national flags for the Atlanta Braves or any other MLB team, the Mexican national flag for Mexican league teams, or the Japanese national flag for the Nippon league teams is inappropriate. Those professional baseball teams do not represent their nations in international competition; the use of a national flag for a pro team simply become a designator for the team's geographic location. And, as I said above, the use of flags for each of the individual players listed on the team rosters is unnecessary because presumably all players on the U.S. national team for the WBC are representing the United States, right? One national flag at the top of each national team roster should be sufficient to show which country the team represents. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I really like the format BA is using. Should we copy it? [19] I noticed that the templates we're using for the rosters are from 2008, with no updates since then. We don't have to keep using them if we decide not to. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be wary of copying it exactly since then we might have some copyvio concerns... I don't mind the current format so much.. but basically i've done a lot of work now and arent keen on redoing everything to change the format... Otherwise...Spanneraol (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should've been more clear to say that I don't mean anything copyvio, but it was suggested on the article talk page that we distinguish between MLB and MiLB somehow, and I like the way BA does it. We could find our own way. I agree we shouldn't undo all the work we did. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur Irwin

Thinking about a GA attempt with this one, but the organization is tough because he held so many roles in baseball and beyond. He often worked in minor league baseball and college baseball (or in scouting and minor league coaching) in the same seasons. I changed up the entire organization of the article tonight. My eyes are crossing a bit, but I'm interested in any feedback if someone wants to have a look. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 03:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks pretty good to me, though granted I didn't read the entire thing in depth. The bit on his two widows is interesting. I say nominate it now. It should pass with at most minor revisions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I nominated it and will continue to touch it up while awaiting a review. EricEnfermero ^Howdy! 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A question

Am I correct in assuming that Category:FM-Class Baseball articles exists as a place to list featured pictures that fall under the scope of WikiProject Baseball? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Category:File-Class Umpires articles is currently empty. I believe it would appropriate for me to add relevant images to the category by inserting {{WikiProject Baseball|umpires=yes}} on the File Talk pages of relevant Files. Is that correct? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

FM stands for "featured media", so that includes videos and sound clips as well as pictures. You are correct that you can add umpire relevant files to the task force/subproject that way. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I was unaware that there was a featured status for videos and sound clips. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In Memoriam

Two legends in one day! Rest in peace gentlemen. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Musial was devoted to his fans to the very end (I think Weaver was, too, but I don't remember). I knew he sent out free autographed postcards on request, so in 2006 I sent a personalization request for my grandmother. I fully expected that not to happen and get a pre-signed postcard from a stack of probably a thousand, but sure enough, 2 day turnaround and Musial personalized the thing. RIP Stan the Man. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 16:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Major League Baseball article: expansion franchises in 1995

I have started a discussion on a minor copy-editing point regarding mentioning the future name of the Tampa Bay franchise. I have reverted the introduced change several times, so it would be good if a consensus can be reached. Any feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete citations

This duplicates Talk: Billy Hamilton (baseball, born 1990)#Incomplete citations. -P64

Every single source citation at Billy Hamilton (baseball, born 1990), and many other such minor league articles, is incomplete, providing nothing but a URL and title. Please use {{Cite web}} and (where appropriate) {{Cite news}} to provide source details, including authors (when not uncredited staff writers), dates (or at least years) of publication, titles of works (newspapers, websites) in which the articles appear, and publishing company and location of publishing company when this can be established, as well is ISSN for any publications that have one. By failing to properly cite citations, you are creating hundreds if not thousands of hours of pointless time-wasting catch-up work for other editors. If you are already at the article you are citing, and copy-pasting the URL & title, just take the extra seconds to cite it fully and properly. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 10:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote to this section, such as I hope to see used here whenever cross-posting does occur.

By the way, here is yesterday's version of the linked article, before its revision by WP:REFLINKS. Working on other WikiProjects recently, I have used {{bare URL}} to tag such articles, although links that display source titles are not literally bare URLs. --P64 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

New category that needs populating

I created Category:High school baseball coaches in the United States today as a sister category to others found in Category:High school athletic coaches in the United States. If you come across any baseball player or coach articles where that person has been (or currently is) a high school baseball coach, please add him to this new category. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Thome PR/eventual FAC

I'm looking to take Jim Thome to FA in the near future. Is anyone willing to PR it for me? Thanks in advance. Go Phightins! 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to do so, time permitting. Thanks Secret ^account 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All-America Team in major league baseball

Inspired by a WP:SPORTS inquiry:

• Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Sports#All-America Team in major league baseball selected annually by Baseball Magazine from 1908

--P64 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Former athletes editing their own biographies.

I noticed in my watchlist the past three days, three different professional athletes editing articles about themselves, two former American football players and one former baseball player, mostly minor information and corrections, nothing extremely serious. Yes it's technically a WP:COI but I feel like they can become productive members of the community considering their first-hand expertise with the sport and the poor shape of many of our articles in this project. User talk:DMcClover58 is one example who I saw pop up on my watchlist. Yes, like every new editor they need to learn our policies and guidelines, especially with sourcing, but considering the drop of active editors especially with American sports, we should treat them with respect and help them when needed (instead of driving them away with a bunch of warning templates and reversions, which is one of the main cause of new editors not staying in Wikipedia). What do you guys think? Hardly in my history of the project I've seen professional athletes edit articles about themselves, so this is a unique scenario. Thanks Secret ^account 20:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

They could be professional editors also. PR people are becoming more conscious of a player's online presence, and Wikipedia is usually one of the first hits on a search. If the edits are verifiable and neutral, it shouldn't make a difference. One issue we should be respectful of is when the editor knows that something is wrong in the article but it is sourced. Knowing the "facts", more searches might find that the original source is in the minority and probably made an error. It may also help to point them to WP:AUTOPROB.—Bagumba (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideal team

FYI

There is a new article, Ideal team, that deals with virtual teams of top players like the Gold Glove Award winners. You are invited to discuss at Talk:Ideal team how best to handle this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Players traded for themselves

Recently an anonymous user at Talk:John McDonald (infielder) brought up a question regarding players who have been "traded for themselves". S/he pointed out that Dickie Noles and Brad Gulden are also players to be traded for themselves, in addition to Harry Chiti and McDonald. Both Chiti's page and McDonald's page claimed that they were the only players to be traded for themselves. Gulden' page had himself and Chiti, while Noles's page had himself, Gulden, and Chiti (with a mention of "among others"). I have changed all the pages to reflect the 4 players I am aware of, but I am curious to know if anyone is aware of other players that were traded for themselves. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 18:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Would making a list article for these players be useful, or is it not that notable? It appears to be just the four, but there may be some hidden before free agency that time forgot. Wizardman 18:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A few more names are listed in http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/9498 . Looking through them:

• Clint Courtney: According to http://baseballhistorypodcast.com/2012/05/22/baseball-hp-1221-clint-courtney/ and http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/courtcl01.shtml, he was traded from the Orioles to Kansas City in January 1961, but was "returned" to Baltimore in April 1961, after having played one game for the A's. I'm not sure if he was actually a player to be named later.
• Archie Corbin: According to http://assets.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/679879.html, Corbin was indeed the player to be named later in his initial trade from the Expos to the Brewers in 1992. This article also discusses the Rob Ducey case, which was two separate trades resulting in Ducey returning to his original team, so it isn't really a case of Ducey being traded for himself.
• Gorman Thomas: According to http://texas.rangers.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070816&content_id=2151982&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp&c_id=tex, Thomas was basically loaned out to Texas during the 1977–78 off-season to clear roster space for the Brewers. Technically not a trade for himself, but close.
• Mark Ross: Not sure; http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rossma01.shtml, shows him involved in two conditional transactions. Since no other players were involved, I'd say close enough (but I think better sourcing should be found first before updating any articles). Update: It's just a fan site, but http://www.astrosdaily.com/players/p/timeline/Ross_Mark.html says that Ross was the player to be named later in his original trade, and http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/1986-transactions.shtml says that Ross was returned to the Astros as part of a conditional deal.
• Mike Gonzalez: Based on http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/gonzami02.shtml, again two separate trades.
• Anastacio Martinez: Funnily enough, on the opposite side of the two trades involving Mike Gonzalez; again not really traded for himself.

So two new cases I found were Corbin and Ross, leaving aside the Courtney case. isaacl (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

McDonald's page I think still only refers to Chiti? isaacl (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

My bad - I thought I had fixed McDonald's page as well. It now shows the same info as Chiti, Noles, and Gulden. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 19:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob Ducey is noted as having been traded for himself, but like some above, it was two separate trades involving players to be named later over a week. Wizardman 20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's kind of different, because the net effect of the two trades was to swap some other players, and Ducey was not returned in compensation for himself, as the first trade was completed before the second trade. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hoyt Wilhelm could qualify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Curses

I thought it might be cool to have an article on baseball/sports curses. The only ones I could think of were the "Curse of the Bambino", "Curse of the Billy Goat" and the "Balboni Curse." If it was expanded to "Sports curses," the "SI curse" and the "Madden curse" could be added. For that matter, if we just stuck with baseball curses, the "SI curse" COULD be included as Nomar Garciaparra's appearance on the cover of Sports Illustrated is considered part of the "SI curse." Anyway, was an idea I had for an article. Yes? No? --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.241.179 (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a number of articles about individual "curses", so an article List of sports "curses" could be created if it makes sense to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Though it's filled with lots of "some sportswriter decided to call this a curse" examples, rather than really notable (in the everyday sense) curses, the article already exists: Sports-related curses. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

So maybe a redirect is in order? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha! There's already a Sports curses, a redirect to Sports-related curses. The redirect was created 4 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)In fact there is already a Category:Baseball-related curses, which includes Curse of the Bambino and several others. As regards the "Sports Illustrated curse", which is mentioned from time to time even in the pages of S.I., that's more a matter of what's called Confirmation bias. For example, as noted in this week's edition, they mention that Michael Jordan has been on the cover 50 times now. Despite his frequent cover appearances, he managed to win 6 NBA championship rings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I went to Sports-related curses, and I'm not impressed. I think it should be broken down by sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.241.179 (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There are various ways to slice-and-dice this. Look at Category:Sports-related curses, and you'll see there are already separate articles for baseball and football. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ordering of infobox honors and awards

Yankees10 is at it again. Anyone who's dealt with him in the past knows exactly what I mean by that. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

His undo of your George Foster edit appears appropriate. I'm quite sure that player of the month was among those that we decided to deprecate in infoboxes. Wizardman 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We also decided that distinguishing NL or AL All-Stars was unncessary, but hey I guess i'm the one always going against consensus right?--Yankees10 17:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I just took a few minutes to review the last four edits to the George Foster article by IP user 71.54.247.55 and Yankees10. Yankees' edits are consistent with current WP:BASEBALL consensus and standards for the formatting of MLB player infoboxes. Apart from the order in which infobox honors are listed, the biggest difference between the two editors' changes are the IP user's inclusion of redundant baseball year links for each award. Generally, these are not used unless there is a separate year article for a particular award or honor; we do not include multiple links to the same "year in baseball" article in the same infobox, and such links are usually limited to the player's terms of service with particular teams. Bottom line: Yankees is simply conforming the infobox honors to current consensus. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a current consensus? Because I recall trying to get one, and that debate never reached a consensus. I take it all back if that is the case. If you wanna send me that link, that would be great because I'm honestly over this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure which consensus you are referring to; the consensus on the highlights to include in the infobox is recorded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice (the order of the highlights has not been agreed upon by consensus, though). isaacl (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if there's no consensus, why is everyone telling me I am wrong? There was a discussion a while back that seemed to be leading toward a consensus on awards in infoboxes and what order these awards should appear. It was pretty well agreed upon that World Series titles would go first, MVP & Cy Young awards, second, and so on. Unfortunately, this discussion kinda died without a clear consensus being reached. Regardless, I've been using it as something of a guideline when I do edits. If Yankees10 is using a guideline that is "more agreed upon" that that which I have been using, then I can adapt. --J.S.

This discussion may be what you are looking for. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout. That was the discussion I was talking about. I've been using my loose recollection of this discussion as the basis for the order I've been using in infoboxes. With no "clearer" consensus has been reached since this discussion, it's kinda annoying having someone shadow all your edits only to rearrange items in the infobox to the order he sees fit. I've said it before I'll say it again; if I'm given a standard order to follow in infoboxes, I'll run with it. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For the 1,362nd time I do not shadow your edits. There is a thing called a watch list. Learn what the hell it is.--Yankees10 02:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think shadow is the right term for it. I added roughly 16,000 bytes of information to George Foster's article. To me, this is a useful edit. Following this edit up with one that simply changes the order of the highlights of his infobox is petty when there is no consensus to validate your actions. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the length of the talk page discussion in question, perhaps it would be beneficial if we compiled the various points of consensus regarding baseball infobox honors in a WP:BASEBALL style page. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean different from Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice mention above?—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Style advice, which is accessible from the navigation box at the top of this page. I've captured various consensus agreements that I'm aware of and have asked on this talk page for others to include the ones they know of.

I think what would help for the discussion on the order of player highlights would be a rationale for a proposed order, based on grouping the highlights into categories that are then ordered, rather than arguing if specific highlight X should go before Y or vice versa. I made this proposal for an ordering based on different categories of highlights, and explained my reasoning for this order. With this approach, we can weigh the pros and cons of the proposals, and not get bogged down with trying to get a perfect top-to-bottom order, which drags out discussion until editors lose interest. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you ask any former World Series winner what was the highlight of his career, I'm sure he would tell you that was it. Likewise, if you asked Dan Marino, Barry Bonds, Charles Barkley or any other superstar who never won a title in his sport about the importance of winning a title, I'm sure they would concur. I strongly believe baseball is a team sport and the team reaching the pinnacle of success should go first in the infobox. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

WS is not as important to a baseball player's legacy as a championship is to an NFL quarterback or an NBA superstar. I wouldn't object to it being on top of the infobox list, but I don't think it has to be either.—Bagumba (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I included Barry Bonds among my examples. I'm sure he would trade any one of his MVP trophies for a World Series ring. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Even if we had the information, and we don't, we aren't going to customize infoboxes based solely on what the subject thinks is important to them.—Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For convenience of discussion, here is a rehash of what I mentioned in the previous discussion. There are two locations of prominence in a list: the beginning and the end. Some editors have expressed the desire to have some flexibility in the order, so that a key achievement can be placed at the start of the list. Others have expressed the desire to highlight individual accomplishments over team ones. In the interest of balancing these wishes, and to help the list crescendo to a satisfying conclusion, I suggest the following structure:

• if appropriate, the one key signature achievement for which the player is known
• individual accomplishments, roughly in order of descending importance and reliability as an indicator of skill
• any remaining signature achievements: All-Star, post-season
• post-career accomplishments: number retirement

This way, the list will start with the deeds for which the player is best known and best summarize the player's skills, and will end with the ultimate events that mark a player's career: winning championships, and personal career recognition. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the "one key signature achievement" concept. Unfortunately, I don't think that will work. Take Frankie Crosetti for example. I believe the fact that he holds the individual record for the most World Series championships is his signature achievement, and deserves to be mentioned first in his infobox, which is where I put it after editing his article. Doing what he does best, Yankees10 moved it. He apparently thinks two All-Star selections is more important. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I included the concept of one key signature achievement as a compromise to those who are more inclined to customize the order for each person, but I suspect it still lead to overly-long debates. (On the bright side, the debate would be limited to one highlight instead of all of them.) Personally I'd prefer to avoid these and just stick to a fixed order. isaacl (talk) 01:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I realize its too simple a solution so no one will agree. But why not just do it alphabetically so that there is zero POV in the process and it is completely objective. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Especially with things like GG, Silver Slugger. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I find it hard to believe that this solution has never been proposed in the past. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As DJ said, it's too simple a solution. People forget about Occam's razor, us included. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I did propose it once; it did not get favour that time, but let's see what happens now. isaacl (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I can live with alphabetical order for infobox honors and awards, with this caveat: records, retired numbers, and HOF should still come last. Yankees should also be happy, given that "All-Star" falls pretty close to the beginning of the alphabet. I could live with one "signature" accomplishment going to the head of the line, provided it's on the order of All-Time MLB home run record," not "NL season leader for balks (1961)." I've also changed the section header to something more appropriate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you are proposing having the following groups:

• Awards, including All-Star selections and World Series championships (in alphabetical order)
• Season league leader (in alphabetical order)
• Career MLB/league leader (in alphabetical order, though at the moment, there is consensus only for three players to have this info, so the order is moot)
• Perfect game/no-hitters
• Retired number

Does this match what you were thinking of? (Hall of Fame selection has its own section in the infobox and so is separate from the rest of the highlights.) isaacl (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Isaac, that certainly works for me. It's relatively simple to understand and will leave very little room for editing disputes. What's everyone else think? Maybe we can get back to actually editing article text instead of arguing over the standard formatting of infobox honors . . . hope springs eternal. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not in love with the idea, but I'll do it if that's the consensus. --J.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Baseball has always glorified individual accomplishments over team accomplishments, whether it's 714 home runs or 3,000 hits. These have always been enshrined far, far above Crosetti's World Series wins, so I'm not following the supposed preeminence of World Series wins in the infobox.Orsoni (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the proposal above: specific categories of highlights, and alphabetical order within each category? isaacl (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no preference for order of career highlights and achievements as long as all articles have the same order to maintain uniformity and fluidity when linking between articles. If alphabetizing wins the concensus, then that's good enuff for me.Orsoni (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Those who support the alphabetical order proposal

1. I know this is not technically the best way to do this, but it will help make the consensus clearer. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

   IMO, it would be more productive to identify all possibilities in a discussion before resorting to a poll. Alphabetizing was just brought up today. Polling is not a substitute for discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

2. If nothing better can be agreed upon, then I'm for it. Ultimately, I'd like it if some sort of order could be determined based upon the importance of the accomplishment. I'd use the following order:

• World Series Championship
• Rookie of the Year
• League MVPs & Cy Young awards
• Gold Glove
• Silver Slugger
• League leaders (Hitting & pitching triple crown categories only)
• All-Star
• Any other awards or notable achievements in chronological order.
• Hall(s) of Fame

As it is a team sport, I'd have World Series titles first. From there, I went with what I viewed as the most impressive accomplishments in descending order. I included Red Sox & North Carolina Halls of fame in my recent edits of Billy Goodman's article. It has since been removed. IMO, such halls would be trivial on a major star's infobox, but I would include it in the infoboxes of some of the sport's lesser names. --J.S.
There wouldn't be an article on a player unless he was a Major Leaguer. Do one minor league award in an info box then you have to do them all.

1. Far better than the alternative below. Wizardman 16:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Those who oppose it

Career highlights and awards, in order of precedence:
World Series champion team or WS champion team makes more sence than "World Series champion" and should be near the bottom since its more a team highlight than an individual highlight and includes the manager, coaches, ... The article's primary focus is on the individual player's highlights and or awards not a team(s) highlight.

• World Series champion (1961, 1962) vs
• World Series champion team (1961, 1962)
  

All-Star (AS game don't count as a regular MLB game; you can't win a pennant with an AS game) shouldn't be on top since there's not one single ML or AL/NL All-Star either but many All-Stars per season despite how many AS games were played per season (1959-62, 8 games, unlike 1 MVP per league, per season.

Team Infobox: teams are w/o any "x's", so why should the next infobox have x's making it look worse and more complicated besides being repetitive? -

• 2xAL MVP (1961,1962) vs
• AL MVP (1961, 1962)
  

The article covers how many times an AL MVP etc ... (All-Star, how many times All-Star and how many games; 1959-62, 4 time All-Star ("all players named to the AL or NL All-Star roster were credited with 1 appearance per season"[20]); 8 game possibility.

• There's MLB Batting Champions (Wikipedia article: "List of Major League Baseball batting champions"[21]), but no article "List of Major League Baseball pitching champions" yet.
  
• AL/NL "pitching title" (champion) and "batting title" (champion) at Baseball Reference.com. for each player - see Billy Pierce:
• "Appearances, Leader Boards, Honors" - "Awards": "1955 AL pitching title"[22] >
• "Year, League, Pitching Champ", "1955 AL Pitching Champ" [23]).
  

All-Star or Gold Glove need not be AL/NL.
You couldn't have a WS team / WS champion team w/o having a pennant champion team so that should be in infobox before WS champion team highlight. Here's some simple infobox examples (w/o x's) and w/o Cy Young award...:

• ML Batting Champion
  
• ML Pitching Champion
  
• AL MVP
  
• AL Pitching champion
  
• AL Rookie of the Year
  
• All-Star
  
• Gold Glove
  
• AL pennant champion team
  
• WS champion team
  
• Chicago White Sox, #9 retired (necessary?)

Summary so far

I believe the only option that has garnered support from more than one person is the strict alphabetical order proposal (not the revised alphabetical order proposal from Dirtlawyer1), assuming Wizardman's support is also for this proposal. I suspect there are other editors who aren't opinionated about this matter and so haven't commented. In light of this, should this order be adopted as the only option that will avoid endless squabbles over whether Rookie of the Year should precede batting average champion, and so forth? isaacl (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with alphabetical sorting. All-Star appearances, league MVP's, and World Series championships are three of the most used metrics by the sports media to identify a player, usually before any other major individual awards (Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, etc). The NBA and NFL projects start with their equivalents, I don't see any reason to change it. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. All-Stars, WS and MVP's should definitely be at top.--Yankees10 04:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I would just like to see this issue settled so that valuable editor time is not wasted reverting infobox changes. As an aside, WP:NFL does not prioritize Super Bowl championships, Pro Bowl selections or any other honors and awards as suggested above; according to the long-standing instructions on the template page (see Template:Infobox NFL player), NFL and CFB championships, honors and awards are supposed to be listed in "reverse chronological order." Obviously, that does not bind WP:Baseball to listing infobox honors in a similar manner, but there is no precedent of prioritizing football honors according to their perceived importance, either.

No one is going to be entirely happy with whatever order is chosen for infobox honors, so it might behoove everyone to start thinking in terms of acceptable compromises. Alphabetical order places All-Star selections first; I have no problem with a modified alpha order that places World Series championships second. After that, it would make sense to place all other awards in alpha order, with records, retired numbers and HOFs at the end, IMO. In all events, let's get this resolved, guys. This dispute has gone on too darn long, has wasted too much editor time, and is a goofy distraction from actually improving the written content of baseball articles, which we should all acknowledge in many cases desperately needs work. That's my two bits worth. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I would not say that All-Star, World Series & MVP are the most used. I would definitely put World Series rings first, MVP second, but I would put league leaders in the triple crown categories before All-star appearances. I agree with the person who said, "All-Star shouldn't be on top since there's not one single ML or AL/NL All-Star either but many All-Stars per season." (I'm not sure who wrote that and whom I should attribute it to). --J.S. (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest maybe giving All-Star a separate infobox section (Hall of Fame has separate section, with stars).
Maybe a World Series section too (or Pennant & World Series section).
All-Star players have only part season evaluation (to July).
All-Star games don't count towards AL & NL league pennants (and world series championships which are post season pennant team championships).
"World Series Champion" is the team (no player is "World Series champion").

All-Star (AL) (1961-1962)
All-Star Games (1960, 1960, 1961)

MVP (AL) (1960)
Rookie of the Year (AL) (1960)
Gold Glove (AL) (1960, 1961)
Cy Young Award (AL) (1960)
Roberto Clemente Award (ML) (1961)

Pennant team (AL) (1960, 1961)
World Series champion team (AL) (1960)YahwehSaves (talk) 07:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC) YahwehSaves (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)YahwehSaves (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Joe Maddon

See Talk:Joe Maddon. Flickr users have far better images than are in the article or over at commons, with the correct licences.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

So upload them, the photographer who took the picture is well known within the Wikipedia community because of his high qualify free pictures of professional athletes. Many of our current athlete photos come from him. Secret ^account 23:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done, was easy enough. Added far better images for Mike Scioscia and Clint Hurdle as well. Now if only a halfway decent one existed on Dale Sveum... Wizardman 04:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have chosen one but being a hockey fan I thought this project would make the best selection. Glad you found others that I wouldn't have done.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I would think that somebody could find a picture of Walt Weiss too. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Spring Training count?

I know that for some time we've been systematically reverting edits for offseason signees that say they have played for whatever their new team is from 2013-. Do Spring Training games count (e.g., is it now legitimate for that to be added) similar to how, for example, we list teams on NFL players even if they were only offseason members (denoted by an *) Go Phightins! 03:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In the infoboxes, no, they're not included in the (xx-present) part unless they make the regular season, though they'll have the colors. Also, Spring Training Logs are not allowed (a friendly pre-emptive reminder) Wizardman 04:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Go Phightins! 13:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox MLB Draft

I'm working on the 1987 Major League Baseball Draft article. The location and time for draft are unavailable, to the best of my knowledge and researching abilities. The parameters look like they are required, however, in Template:Infobox MLB Draft. Is there a way I can remove them from the infobox? Thanks. Albacore (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor league rosters

I saw at RfD the request for removal of some redirects at RfD, (and saw the link to an earlier similar discussion and I commented there on my surprise that the article to which they were redirected , eg. Baltimore Orioles minor league players, contained only the current players. Something seems badly wrong here. WP is not a news site, and if we are interested in the current lineup, we are just as interested in all past line-ups if we can get the information. The proper thing to do would seem to be to edit the articles so it contains every player who has every been on the squads, or I think the article violates our general WP:NOT guidelines. I imagine this is being done deliberately for what most have been thought good reason, so perhaps someone can explain, or refer me to a prior discussion. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this is, unfortunately, a classic example of no one thinking that far ahead. I don't remember which archive it's in, but I do remember the discussion on making the blanket articles and having not-really-notable players redirect to them. We never really brought up what happens in three years if they retire and don't get past AA. I don't think it's worth having a redirect any longer, nor do I think past rosters are necessary, but I can see why some might want major prospects of the past added to the page since there may be nowhere else to put them. Wizardman 04:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Minor league player pages are for current players.. listing every player who has every played for the team is impractical as it would be excessively long. The redirects should be pointing to players on those pages... when the players are cut the info should be unmerged back to its original page. Then that page can be evaluated and deleted if necessary. Spanneraol (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP is NOTPAPER; nothing is too long to be included if it is encyclopedic; there are always ways of handling it. If one article is too long for practicality, it is possible to make an article for every season. . Either the roster of a minor league team is of only temporary interest, in which case it does not belong in an encyclopedia, or it is of permanent interest, in which case it does. (It is also possible that only the rosters of the teams at the higher levels are of permanent interest, in which case only they belong in an encyclopedia.) I have at the moment no personal opinion which of the three is the best way to go, and if there is to be a discussion of which I would probably nonly give a general opinion that the bias should be inclusion. What I care about is the principle that this is an encyclopedia. For an encyclopedia, notability is permanent: if the rosters of the farm system are notable, they belong here-- forever. If not, they don't belong here at all.

Wizardman is right that we will have the same problem in many other areas--none of us thought of these problems when WP was getting started (for example, we still update financial data for companies, but do not keep the old data in the article; that is equally incorrect for an encyclopedia and that's the next place I'll discuss this. It is true all versions are there in the history, and it is possible that the community may decide this is sufficient, but I doubt it, for what readers know is only the actual text--the history is presently only used by us wikipedians. It is possible we may want to handle this by subpages. I do know that WikiData can handle multiple values for every parameter and is quite consciously designed to retain such time series information, and thus facilitate its inclusion in articles in whatever manner we decide. WikiData is currently designed only as a resource for storing article data, but it could be used as a directly accessed data repository also. There are many long term considerations, but what do we do right now? I would be very loth to suggest changing the policy that notability is permanent. And, actually, the possibility of handling this better in the future is a good argument for not deciding the content is encyclopedic , and not eliminating the articles. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This problem was solved by editors who made season pages for minor league teams. Rosters were limited to those individual seasons so the length of the article was not an issue. Unfortunately, these pages were deemed non-notable and deleted. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the minor league rosters are notable but they are also ever changing so we update the page to reflect the roster as it is currently as much as possible. The point of the page isnt to say these players have permanent notability but to reflect the rosters as they are and to give a snapshot of the team's farm system. Players move between systems constantly so the players on the page get shuffled from one teams page to another as they are traded or sign as free agents, etc. Spanneraol (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Too few categories?

Article Origins of baseball is was in 2 cats:

• cat History of baseball
• cat Causes of events

I deleted the latter. This leaves "Origins" a member of one category alone, as I did not readily find another that is clearly appropriate. Now I see that its sections Origins of baseball#Folk games in England and Origins of baseball#Cricket and rounders, at least, do warrant our creation of some more useful navigation-ways --by some combination of putting it in cats, putting redirects to some of its sections in cats, and putting it in See also sections of other articles.

Article History of baseball in the United States is in 3 cats:

• cat History of baseball in the United States
• cat History of baseball
• cat Major League Baseball websites

The first one is a so-called eponymous category WP:EPONCAT and is in the second; jointly they constitute one route from this article to more or less related ones.

The last seems to be nonsense, although a visit to the cat shows that "MLB websites" is a great misnomer. The article barely mentions internet and web once each, concerning the memorabilia market during the last two decades. If the classification is serious then it should be a redirect to one subsection that is in the category. And there must be other articles where we cover Organized Baseball-related e-business more substantially in a paragraph whose section should also be in the category as a redirect.

Is there a rule or strong norm that every article (or page) needs more than one category? These Origins-in-causes and History-in-websites classifications look like desperate moves to have more than one.

Article "History of BB in the US" does not more classification --although some redirects to its sections may, see above-- because classification of its eponcat History of baseball in the United States takes that role in general. For example, the latter is in cat Sports history of the United States. For example of the other point, article History of the United States is in one category alone, only its eponcat.

--P64 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2013‎ (UTC)

Subcategory discussion tenuously related to this WikiProject

There is a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#New Category - is this a precedent we want? that somewhat pertains to this WikiProject. Please weigh in. Thanks! Jrcla2 (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This concerns whether Category:Baseball players from Portland, Oregon (created September 2011) and its sibling cats should be deprecated. Jrcla2 proposes that the finest regional categorization for basketball players --and baseball and American football-- should be players by state.

(I agree in opposition to such cats.) --P64 (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Game 162, again

See discussion here. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 10:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Handedness in baseball

Dear baseball enthusiasts: I have been editing a really, really long article about Handedness to make it shorter and simpler. I have taken out about 8,000 bytes of scientific jargon and excessive detail. However, I am completely stymied by the section about baseball. Knowing little about baseball, I still should be able to figure out what the writer is getting at, but I am finding it unintelligible. Maybe by the time I got to that section my brain was getting tired. Is there someone who can take a look at the article, figure out how handedness effects baseball, and fix it up? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The section appears to have been written in Japanese, as it is difficult for a lay person to make heads or tails about what the editor was trying to convey. I'll try to simplify it.Orsoni (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Major League Pitching champions/Infobox

There should be an article for "List of Major League pitching champions" since there is an article "List of Major League batting champions".
The AL/NL Pitching and Batting champions (Batting champion is added some infoboxes) should be added to info box since there is a so called and single "World Series champion" ("World Series champion team" is better) which can only be part true (team recognition, highlight) and is misleading and not basically a one-man only recognition (team players that didn't play in ws and coaches are champions too then since it applies to the whole team).
See Billy Pierce (Talk-"1955 AL Pitching title") and Yankees10's know it all Pierce article and derogatory infobox deletes.

I'll ask the same thing everyone else is. What the hell is a pitching champion? That term in and of itself has no meaning. Does that mean ERA champion? Cy Young? Best WAR? You can't just add in imaginary titles. Honestly YahwehSaves your edits constitute disruption and I'm very close to blocking you for a while. Wizardman 05:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Everyone (of good faith):

• Billy Pierce - Baseball Reference.com
• Appearances on Leader Boards, Awards, and Honors - "Awards": 1955 AL pitching title [24] ->
• "Year, League, Pitching Champ" (says Batting Champ): "1955 AL Billy Pierce" [25]
  
  
• Wikipedia - Article
• List of Major League Baseball batting champions[26]
• List of Major League Baseball pitching champions (N/A)

To whoever is posting the above and doesn't know how to sign his name... there is no accepted standard for a "pitching champion". Some consider ERA to be the benchmark, others consider winning percentage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

When we discussed which awards that should be listed in infoboxes, I think there was a concensus for Season ERA leader and Relief pitcher (Rolaids?), but I can't remember if Wins leader was mentioned.Orsoni (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus was captured at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice; it includes season league leader in wins. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem may be the wording. The term "batting champion" actually refers to the batter with the highest batting average, so it's really "batting average champion". There's no comparable term for pitchers as such. You can have an ERA "champion" or winning percentage "champion", although "leader" would be the common usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The batting champions list should specify who was actually called "batting champion". Barnes in 1876? Barnes in 1871? Anyway it may be appropriate that batting champion is a WP:REDIRECT either to Batting average or to List of Major League Baseball batting champions.

If "pitching champion" is not used in baseball today then it may be unreasonable to have any list of champions. For one thing it may be a lot of work to identify every pitching champion, even in the majors, so identified by the league offices (and Spalding's Guide before that?). However it may be reasonable that pitching champion is a WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Suppose it is known that Wins, Win percentage, and ERA were used in three time periods (perhaps with gaps between them, in truth or in our ignorance). The disambiguation would list each pitching statistics, or each list of leaders that once would have been called the pitching champions, along with uncertain "birth" and "death" dates for that notion of the championship.

Uncertainly I guess it's been decades since there was a pitching champion. Vaguely I recall Jack Chesbro and Bill Bernhard announced as pitching champions or champion pitchers for 1902 by the criterion of win percentage. --P64 (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

College World Series champ templates

Do you guys endorse these templates (example - Template:1981 Arizona State Sun Devils baseball)? Looking at several, it seems like only 3-5 players on each have articles - and most college baseball players aren't notable as a lot of college football and basketball players are. I'm not going to go around AfDing these, but I thought I'd ask the question. Templates with 3-5 players on them don't really reflect the "team" that won the championship. My recommendation based on other sports championship templates would be to flesh them out more (if it looks like the starters, etc. generally meet GNG) or just not do them, but it is really up to this project how you want to handle them. Rikster2 (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asking myself that same question, and was probably going to end up bringing it here as well. I've got the same issue with the templates in Category:American college baseball consensus All-American navigational boxes, as many of the "consensus" All-Americans aren't notable, or at least don't have wiki articles because many of the older ones don't have enough sources available on the internet. From clicking on a random selection of them, half of the players in those templates appear to be red links. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: AA navboxes. None of them contain all red links. Simple solution: create the articles; being consensus All-Americans means they are all bound to pass GNG by searching newspaper archives and the like. That's what Rikster2 and I did for the men's basketball AA navboxes. No opinion on the College World Series navboxes. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox, "a good, but not set-in-stone rule to follow is the rule of five." Every single one of the navboxes in question is featured on at least five articles and most are featured on 7-10, with some as many as 13. There are some CWS champions without at least 3-4 notable players (all of the coaches and seasons have articles, so there's 2 automatically), and for those, navboxes have not been created. Mizzou415 (talk) 17:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:2012 Arizona Wildcats baseball though strikes me as unnecessary. Sure, other members of the team might become notable, but who knows? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. That one was created prematurely. Mizzou415 (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is that 4-5 players does not a baseball team make. If a basketball championship Navbox has 5 articles, that's basically the Starting 5. A four player baseball box falls way short of representing the team. If the players are notable, but articles just don't exist, that's one thing. If only a few players are notable, I would suggest that the Navbox really isn't needed. But like I said - project decision. Rikster2 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hate to say it but trying to get a navbox deleted can be worse than having your teeth pulled. A navbox consisting entirely of redlinks is to be kept because maybe somebody will do articles on it. We're not talking one editor but a half dozen. Not going to do that again....William 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It has largely been the custom in college basketball and college football to include only those players who have an article in a national champion navbox. See, e.g. Template:2012 Alabama Crimson Tide football navbox & Template:2012 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball navbox. Admittedly, some of the basketball navboxes include redlinks for some players but exclude other players who don't have articles but do so seemingly randomly. The idea that the national champion navbox must fully represent the team is a fairly novel one and would require the deletion of quite a few football national champion navboxes. See, e.g. Template:1958 Iowa Hawkeyes football navbox & Template:1964 Arkansas Razorbacks football navbox. Mizzou415 (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This[27] wasn't the navbox I was referring to, but it is a good example of what I'm talking about. Two links in the whole box that aren't red in color but it survived a deletion discussion. It involved this project too....William 00:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As the guy who has been creating articles for the basketball championship navboxes, I can assure you the names left on are not random. Myself and a couple of others on the project did a cursory look at the players and made a preliminary call about who on the team would probably meet GNG - and in fact I have personally taken names off when I have gone to do the research for an article and found there were not sufficient sources. If you look at the templates from 1939-1949 they are completely "bluelinked," with the idea the others would be filled in on an ongoing basis (I know I still spend time on this). My suggestion would be to do a similar cursory look at the CWS templates and see how many players/coaches are notable. If it looks like a sizable number are then flesh them out. If not, might be worth questioning their worth. Rikster2 (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, all the MLB World Series champion roster navboxes were deleted. If those were deleted (where 95% of the people included are notable), then I don't think there should be any college baseball champion navboxes (where 10% of the people included are notable). The roster of players on a championship team should be listed on that team's roster and there should not be a navbox. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

X96lee, take a look here: Category:World Series championship navigational boxes. Not sure if it has a bearing one way or another on whether we should keep the CWS championship team navboxes, but championship team navboxes for the World Series do exist. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I stand corrected. I wonder what I was thinking of then... — X96lee15 (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A number of other sports have deleted theirs such as hockey. But the baseball project has been fairly firm in keeping them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hockey deleting navboxes? NO WAY! I'm actually surprised you ever had them to delete in the first place. Rikster2 (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We have a lot of navboxes so no need to get nasty. Its only ever really been the championship team ones that have been the big issue over there. Because championship team ones violate the guidelines in just about every way possible. -DJSasso (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

X96lee, I did find an old TfD regarding one of the Yankees' championship team navboxes which ended in "no consensus." That may be what you were recalling. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Solution Why not just create the navbox with all the players listed, but have them NOT linked if they do not have an article. The template exists, and if people become notable and their articles created, the template can be updated? Arnabdas (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial sources

Every time there is unofficial news of a trade, signings, waiver, etc, editors rush to add it to an article as if it was official. I've created the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions to capture how to handle this. It's easier to just drop this on a talk page/edit summary than having to explain this every time. I've also added it as a link to the navbox on this talk page under "Handling transactions". Feel free to improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! Should we dig up and provide some examples of transactions that were breathlessly reported by the media but then fell through? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

One embarrassing example, perhaps featuring a top player, will certainly improve an essay.

Create a short nickname for use in edit summaries. --P64 (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sammy Sosa

I'm not sure if this edit is accurate. Does anyone know? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there text in the article to support that category? And is the text supported by reliable sources? Rklear (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The text does not appear to support the claim, based on my brief check. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The category was deleted at CFD a month prior, so it shouldn't have been recreated to begin with; removing as moot. Wizardman 01:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the IP that added the category should be investigated. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Real or fake?

Is Taquito Juarez real or a hoax? Can anyone verify the claim that he played for the national team, or find the books used as refs? The-Pope (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I accessed the second ref and found nothing for either Juarez. Orphaned, no sources on that name whatsoever, and a twitter made two days ago to try to make this seem even slightly legit? This has hoax written all over it, deleted. Wizardman 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Frank Thomas - 2005 White Sox

We have an edit warrior over at that page insisting Thomas is a "2005 World Series champ" despite his not being on the postseason roster. I've linked that user to a discussion from after the 2009 WS, which isn't convincing the user of our project consensus, at least not to this point. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll block if he continues, pretty clear case of one editor trying to fight against clear consensus. Wizardman 22:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, although he was done for the season due to an injury in July,[28] he did participate in the victory celebration, and on his turn at the podium he said, "We're world's champions, baby!" And as I understand it, he also was given a ring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Rings can be given to pretty much anyone - a player who was traded at mid-season, management, the janitor. It really means nothing in terms of denoting whether a player is consider a World Series champion for that team. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Thomas said "we", which would include himself, and no one contradicted him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah baseball has no line that players must pass to be considered a WS champion. So really... we can't really say he wasn't. It isn't like hockey where there is a specific rule stating how many regular season games and playoff games are required. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I remember this discussion starting in 2009, when I tried adding Xavier Nady and Chien-Ming Wang to {{2009 New York Yankees}}, but was shot down. I watched Nady and Wang receive keys to the city at the culmination of the ticker tape parade down the Canyon of Heroes and figured that should suffice, but consensus developed to limit it to the active roster. I can understand that things can get out of hand if you don't restrict it that way. We'd have to include every player who made at least one appearance for the WS champions, even if it was a sour cup of coffee. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

We could always establish our own guidelines of the player being on the 25 man roster for more than a certain number of games. Either that, or anyone who got a receipt of the World Series player shares, as Melky Cabrera did this past year. Arnabdas (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues I see there is that #1 is a violation of WP:OR (as in wherever we set that cutoff is arbitrary and editor-driven), and that #2 means an overwhelming list. That's 45 players who suited up for at least one game among the 2012 Giants, for instance. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's also really hard to identify the players who got a World Series player share as that is not always announced publicly.. Especially for teams from the pre-internet age it would be really hard to track down.. Appearing on the playoff roster is really easy to verify and an easy cut off point. Spanneraol (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't OR, it is consensus through discussion. There is no set policy so we would create a guideline unless wikipedia establishes an actual one that is germaine. Just because we don't have the information from previous years about the player shares, does not mean we should deny adding the ones we know of. Just like just because we don't have full information on so many of the 19th century players does not mean we shouldn't add as much as we can to the articles of modern day players. Remember, we are not changing the guideline for the template, just the individual player's infobox. Arnabdas (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

International Competition Selection and Awards Notations in Infobox and Articles

I propose we put participation of players on Olympic and WBC teams into the infoboxes of the player. To me, it is akin to an All Star selection and is a notable accomplishment.

Furthermore, I propose that articles that have players in international competition have a separate section. One section will be their professional careers and another their international careers. I have already reorganized some of the articles to take that into consideration. Arnabdas (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate your long section heading but I'm not sure about the substance because the point isn't clear to me.

Participation in the WBC should be noted in the ordinary course of a chronological presentation. For example, A Rod#2006 season appropriately mentions his WBC-USA participation (preseason, which it doesn't specify) but that one line is out of place. It should be at the beginning of the section, as the 2006 lead, so to speak.

If more substantial coverage of a player's participation is appropriate, it's likely that it still belongs largely in the ordinary course. See Dice K#2009 season and Dice K#2009 World Baseball Classic.

--P64 (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

My longer title was meant to address two points:

1. In the infoboxes of players, they get a mention if they were selected to an all-star team. My point is that they should similarly get a mention inside their infobox for selection to a WBC roster.

2. In the article itself, I was proposing to separate a player's professional career from his international career. Both are separate and have nothing to do with the other so clumping them together does no good IMO. If someone wants to look at the international career of a player representing a country, the person shouldn't have to comb through seasons within the player's MLB, NPB or whatever professional league's career. Arnabdas (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File question

Are pictures of Hall-of-Famers under the scope of the Hall of Fame task force automatically, or does the picture need to relate to the Hall of Fame in a more obvious way to be considered under the scope of that task force? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would think any picture of someone in the Hall of Fame would be in scope. -DJSasso (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? I would like for the consensus to be clear before I do a bunch of tagging. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The scope of projects and task forces is essentially self-defined: if the group of interested editors is interested in an article or file, then it is in the group's scope. I suggest you consider how you would make use of a list of pictures associated with the Hall of Fame task force: what tasks would you like to perform that would be aided by listing these pictures within its scope? Once you know the tasks you want to accomplish, knowing what files to consider in scope will ensue. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The way I defined the HoF task force when I developed it was to include all pictures of Hall of Famers. The purpose of the task force is to highlight those whose accomplishments were recognized as making them the best of the best. Images such as File:Ty Cobb sliding2-edit1.jpg fit the bill. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Manny Ramirez

Please see this discussion here regarding a content issue. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally agree with Captain Screebo. The OJ bit is trivial, and doesn't reflect anything about him beyond that he misunderstood what he heard. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I hate how a whole discussion about that page took place on a far away noticeboard without anything being put on the actual page to notify people that such discussion was going on. I tend not to watch the BLPN page though I do have Manny's page on my watchlist. Spanneraol (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I've had Manny watchlisted for some time but I don't have BLPN on my watchlist, since most of the articles brought there don't interest me. It should've been brought to the Manny talk page first. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

New article

I just created 1999 Baltimore Orioles – Cuban national baseball team exhibition series yesterday. I was kinda surprised there wasn't already an article for that. I appreciate any help improving the article, and finding places to link to it elsewhere in the wiki. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a short paragraph on the series to the article American Series. BRMo (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that article existed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance at Kevin Youkilis

User:Nyyfnfrvr is actively disrupting this page, adding a non-free image and the whole "2013-present" WP:CRYSTAL violation. S/He reverted Muboshgu once and me three times. I have issued 3 disruptive editing warnings which have not even bean read. Don't want to be involved in an edit war here - any and all assistance would be awesome. Thanks Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

and s/he just did this to my talk page. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 21:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

White space, probably from Template:Infobox baseball biography

Is there a way to remove the whitespace from the top of Mark Merchant? I have looked at Template:Infobox baseball biography but I can't find a way to remove it. Albacore (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The notability of Mark Merchant is questionable... and minor league teams and stats are not supposed to go in those info boxes. Spanneraol (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same problem with Marty Pattin, but that article uses {{infobox MLB player}}. What's weirder is that the whitespace doesn't appear until the page loads completely. TCN7JM 03:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh crap. Now I'm getting this weird whitespace issue literally everywhere. Watchlist, articles, everywhere. Purging the cache did nothing and neither did restarting the browser. This means it's probably not {{infobox baseball biography}} that's the problem. TCN7JM 04:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)